House Democrats Introduce National Feed-in Tariff for Renewable Energy Projects
U.S. Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced landmark legislation [PDF] on Thursday that will provide security for investments in the renewable-energy sector by guaranteeing rates for renewable-energy generation.
This policy mechanism, also known as a national feed-in tariff, may be the single most effective tool to expand renewable energy development that we know of. Feed-in tariffs have been introduced in several U.S. states, but none have the bills have been passed into law.
The International Energy Agency, the European Commission and the United Kingdom’s Stern Review have determined that feed-in tariff policies in Germany, Spain, France and other European Union countries have achieved larger renewable energy deployment at lower costs, compared with policies in other European Union countries.
The legislation has two principle titles. The first would streamline interconnection standards and the patchwork of policies currently governing interconnection. The second title addresses the actual process of setting of renewable energy tariffs, and what would qualify. This bill would not only apply to the mom and pop backyard wind turbines, and rooftop solar - the tariff extends to projects as large as 20 megawatts!
As it is currently written, the tariff would be revisited no later than one year after it is enacted and every two years thereafter, thus incorporating a ratcheting mechanism that allows the rate-setters to adjust for technological advances, bottlenecks in supply chains, changes in demand, and other unforeseen stimuli that might necessitate a rate revision.
According to a statement released by the bill’s co-sponsors:
“Enacting a federal renewable-energy payments policy would streamline what could become a patchwork regulatory structure and an unstable investment climate for the U.S. domestic renewable energy market. It also would complement incentives for renewable-energy deployment, such as existing federal-tax credits as well as proposed plans to cap carbon emissions and set federal renewable-electricity requirements, among others.”
Rep. Jay Inslee:
“With hundreds of billions of dollars in capital slated for investment in the clean-energy sector in coming decades, we’d be fools if we didn’t ensure American manufacturers would be on the receiving end of this rapidly growing market.”
Rep. Bill Delahunt:
“It is time for the United States to take a leadership role in the new ‘clean energy’ economy. By giving our own consumers access to proven financial incentives and boosting demand for clean energy technology we can position the United States to become a world leader in this emerging sector of the global economy that has the potential to create thousands of new ‘green-collar’ jobs here at home.
Other Posts About Feed-in Tariffs
“Illinois: Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff Introduced in House of Representatives”
“Germans Debate Renewable Energy Price Supports”
“Feed-in Tariffs: The Quick and Dirty“
Photo: Thomas Roche via Flickr under a Creative Commons License
I have a question - have the European feed in tariffs reduced the continent’s consumption of coal, oil and natural gas? Stated another way, after years of investment, has there been a reduction in the quantity of CO2 entering the atmosphere from the countries that have enacted this kind of support for the renewable energy industry?
Rod-
Re: Has there been a reduction in the quantity of CO2 entering the atmosphere from the countries that have enacted this kind of support for the renewable energy industry?
A cursory search turned up this from Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
“Fossil-fuel emissions of CO2 from unified Germany have declined 17.6% since 1990 to 221 million metric tons of carbon in 2004. The 2004 per capita emission estimate of 2.67 metric tons of carbon is comparable to mid 1950s levels. Although the largest fraction of emissions (41.4%) is from burning of solid fuels, the use of coal has been in general decline since 1950, at which time 97.3% of the total emissions were from coal burning.”
According to the EIA, Germany produced 844.2 million metric tons from burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere in 2005. This number is roughly equivalent (844 mm tons) to 2002 emissions. Granted, this is for the burning of all fossil fuels, so it does not fully address your question.
But I’m going to keep digging.
What Rod is alluding to, is the money spent isn’t worth it, therefore why bother. As populations grow, consumerism increases, we simply need more power. For successful projects, look at southern Spain and places like Greece where there are no hot water boilers. In American terms, house building codes force builders to use solar devices to heat domestic water.
A very large number of properties here in the US could have these and save energy. Why isn’t it the code here? Here in FL, building standards are pathetic. There’s almost nothing built that is designed for the local environment, or built to reduce energy consumption.
People with double-glazing is almost 0%. Houses with white roofs is 0%. The only solar you see it heating the pools, which in turn means having to run the pump longer to try and keep on top of the algae. AC ducts are in the attic, the hottest place in a FL home.
What we need is a common sense approach to where we each live. FL builders are a disgrace, the county and city codes are pathetic. We can save a lot local with a few simple changes. Other states will have their own solutions to the reduction of energy. But being the US, we will do nothing. Because we’re sticking it to the man and won’t be told what to do. Far better to kill civilians in another country and pretend “we’re #1!”.
@Rod: Even if one does count everything via CO2 emissions you should be aware of the independent UN study which have concluded that in dozen years from now group of developing countries: China, India, Russia, Mexico and Brazil will contribute about 75% of total worldwide CO2 emissions… While the “evil polluters” of EU and USA would come shy of 20% (about 17% with EU donating 7% and USA 10%). So, there is the list of countries where the difference can be made. I just don’t see any eco-nuts doing anything vs. those sources. Wake up and realize that even if everything in the USA and EU stops and everyone falls dead, CO2 emissions worldwide won’t feel a dent…
great to see the Dems pushing this forward
I always say: look around, see what works and adopt it
Paul-
I couldn’t agree more with your concerns about building standards - they are indeed atrocious. What we need is some linkage between the people who build the house and the people who end up owning it a few years later. We are throwing good money after bad in far too many residential buildings.
And I also agree that solar might be best for solar thermal applications, as opposed to solar PV.
However, I still don’t get your comment that “the money spent isn’t worth it.” How so? Can you quantify that for me?
for 100s of videos about feed-in-tariffs and other renewables news, visit the Etopia News web site at:
http://www.etopianews.com
Who is the target of this bill? 20 MW is a fairly paltry amount of power - maybe enough for a town of 10k people. And the clause that lets congress alter the guaranteed rate every couple of years seems to make the whole law pointless. Why would I sink a lot of money into a power plant that is profitable only above market prices if I know Congress can renege in just a few years?
great to see the Dems pushing this forward
I always say: look around, see what works and adopt it
Jacob-
I don’t know if I would consider 20 MW paltry. But even if I did, I don’t think I would consider 100 20 MW installations “paltry”, would you?
And to your second point, it’s my understanding that the tariff rate would only be adjusted to maintain the proper level of revenue for the power provider, not to take it away or chop it in half.